# Another tax from the Democraps



## macjoe53

WASHINGTON - Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.

The plan's sponsors acknowledged the tax measure is unlikely to pass, and admitted they lacked support from top Democrats, a fact immediately reinforced by the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

"This is not a policy which the Speaker or I have signed off on," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Mass.

But Democrats have been seeking in recent weeks to contrast the approximately $190 billion cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the $23 billion increase that Democrats want in domestic programs.

President Bush has threatened to veto most of those domestic spending bills as too expensive. Those bills were largely written by the House Appropriations Committee that Obey chairs. Murtha chairs the panel's subcommittee that writes Pentagon and war spending bills.

"The war will cost future generations billions of dollars in taxes that we're shoving off on them and it is devouring money that could be used to expand their educational opportunities, expand their job training possibilities, attack our long-term energy problems and build stronger communities," Obey said.

At the same time, a group of Democratic allies, including unions and liberal advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org and Americans United for Change, announced a grassroots and an advertising campaign urging Republicans to override Bush's promised veto of a bill expanding a popular children's health insurance program known as SCHIP.

The $3 million to $5 million campaign will be broadened to upcoming battles over domestic spending, including a measure boosting spending on education, health research and job training programs.

Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin unveiled polling suggesting voters side with Democrats in the upcoming budget battles.

"This is a fight that Democrats ought to welcome, that Republicans ought to fear," Garin said.

"SCHIP and the battle over spending priorities is the most important fight since the showdown over privatizing Social Security," said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "I don't think we need to remind Bush who won that battle."

But Republicans pounced on the tax surcharge idea.

"Americans will reject Democrat plans to take away their hard-earned dollars and will penalize the party that demonstrates an inability to win the War on Terror," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz.

Obey also announced that Democrats will not pass a supplemental spending bill for the Iraq war until next year, when Democrats hope public pressure could force Bush to change the course of the war.

Democrats hope their chances of winning a battle with Bush on the war will be better next year as the election season heats up.

"The showdown is going to be in January or February," McGovern said.

The lawmakers said the tax surcharge was similar to policies put in place to pay for the Vietnam War and World War II.

"By putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the president's bluff on fiscal responsibility," Obey said.


----------



## Bigwaved

So, where should we find the money to pay for this, just out of curiosity? As far as I know, we are primarily borrowing to fund this.


----------



## Da Klugs

The concept is good.

How about a 10% flat surcharge for everyone?

I don't mind paying 50+ % of my income in taxes but enough is enough!


----------



## glking

It's not about taxes.

It is simply liberal democrats trying to keep their base happy.

They know it doesn't have any chance of passing, but it lets them claim they are doing something in their continuing effort to defeat the US in Iraq.


----------



## Bigwaved

Da Klugs said:


> The concept is good.
> 
> How about a 10% flat surcharge for everyone?
> 
> I don't mind paying 50+ % of my income in taxes but enough is enough!


I with you. This is one of those hard to answer questions. I think that is why not much has been done to address it. It seems like everyone on the hill is more worried about reeelection and not offending any potential votes than making tough choices.


----------



## hova45

Thats why when you have money you use the tax shelters to avoid paying any taxes. We didn't delcare war Bush and congress did let them pay


----------



## Da Klugs

hova45 said:


> Thats why when you have money you use the tax shelters to avoid paying any taxes. We didn't delcare war Bush and congress did let them pay


A fair but inaccurate stereotype. The "working well off" pay the lions share of taxes in this country. The super rich might find ways to avoid most taxes but 9999/10000 do not.


----------



## glking

How true.

*The top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96.03% of income taxes*


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

The Democrats implemented a "pay-as-you-go" budget policy back in March. It basically means that the government will not introduce any new spending without a way to pay for it. Apparently, they are applying this policy retroactively onto the war spending. I think this is fair. If people who support the war have to pay for it out of their own pockets instead of passing the debt down to their grandchildren they might think differently about an indefinite occupation.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## macjoe53

glking said:


> How true.
> 
> *The top 50% of wage earners in the US pay 96.03% of income taxes*


That's why I growing fond of the idea of the flat-tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no tax shelters. Of course, it will never happen.


----------



## Da Klugs

macjoe53 said:


> That's why I growing fond of the idea of the flat-tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no tax shelters. Of course, it will never happen.


Study these statistics..

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The problem with a flat tax is that it would represent a huge increase for the lowest 50% of taxpayers and a perceived huge decrease for the top current payers. Maybe a 2 or three step flat tax... but then we are pretty much back to where we started.

The misnomer and unfair characterization that "rich people" don't pay enough taxes is born of lack of awareness of what is actually paid by whom today. The definition of "rich" with 20 years of inflation behind us becomes an interesting study in "tax bracket creep". Couple that with the ever increasing cap on SS wages and the change to unlimited for medicade medicare tax and there are many "hidden increases".

Check out the instructions on your tax forms. The typical "rich person" (Not super rich) ends up losing an ever increasing percent of their itemized deductions, effectively paying even higher rates than the schedule. In the past 20 years this has swept most of the middle/upper middle class into much higher tax brackets which has not been fully compensated by categorical reductions in the rates.

No easy solutions to our problems except maybe a bit higher economic growth rate and some rationalization of public spending.


----------



## muziq

Da Klugs said:


> No easy solutions to our problems except maybe a bit higher economic growth rate and some rationalization of public spending.


Bingo.

Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.


----------



## macjoe53

muziq said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.


Sir, you are correct.


----------



## Bigwaved

muziq said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.





macjoe53 said:


> Sir, you are correct.


What? Are you saying the title of this thread doesn't make everyone warm and fuzzy?


----------



## mosesbotbol

Corona Gigante said:


> The Democrats implemented a "pay-as-you-go" budget policy back in March. It basically means that the government will not introduce any new spending without a way to pay for it. Apparently, they are applying this policy retroactively onto the war spending. I think this is fair. If people who support the war have to pay for it out of their own pockets instead of passing the debt down to their grandchildren they might think differently about an indefinite occupation.
> 
> Just my $0.02.


:tpd:

We should not have to borrow any money for this, and expecting the future generations to pay for it is not fair either. Maybe this will decide how important the war is.

Is it worth spending out of pocket for it? Like the addage, "If you don't have the cash to buy it, you do not need it."


----------



## muziq

Bigwaved said:


> What? Are you saying the title of this thread doesn't make everyone warm and fuzzy?


Well, Dave, I'm warm and fuzzy, but not because of this thread title :r


----------



## Da Klugs

*Re: Another tax from the Demo craps*



Corona Gigante said:


> The Democrats implemented a "pay-as-you-go" budget policy back in March. It basically means that the government will not introduce any new spending without a way to pay for it. Apparently, they are applying this policy retroactively onto the war spending. I think this is fair. If people who support the war have to pay for it out of their own pockets instead of passing the debt down to their grandchildren they might think differently about an indefinite occupation.
> 
> Just my $0.02.


I'd place credence to your argument if they retroactively included social security, Medicaid, Medicare, govt benefits and pensions, entitlements, subsidies, etc. into the same approach. As it stands it's just politics pointed at a volatile issue with the sole cynical purpose of political gain.

Our "future generations" problems have been created by committing to many things which continue to get worse from a financial overcommitment standpoint, coupled with the US's position changing in the world economy. Singling out the war spending as the keystone for our future generations financial well being, is at best myopic, and at worst a shill based agenda.

Conversely, our future generations need a safe place to live has a place in the discussion as well. Hindsight is always 20/20. No one will argue that it's not the best of situations. We can all argue about how to resolve it.


----------



## Trout

My knee jerk reaction this story on the news was-- You have to be sh**ting me. You jerks don't have the balls or the courage to end the Iraq war, so you'll put the responsibility on the public. What a bunch of chicken sh**ts.

Yes I know things are not so simple, who should pay for the war, us or our children, the politics of why we are there, and the dems vs. republicans. But that was just my first initial reaction and I think I'm not the only one who will be thinking the same thing.

I have always felt that poliaticns who really are against the war should vote no on funding the war, then if the admistration sends troops anyways it becomes a showdown. The problem as my simple mind sees it; neither side is really willing to draw a hard line in the sand. They (both sides) would rather use thier own media darlings to sing to the quire. 

It is a real shame a third party doesn't seem to be able to find a candidate that could win and kick both parties to the curb. What a bunch of ignorant smug bastards. 

:2:BS


----------



## adsantos13

Let me preface this post by saying I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to fiscal policy, economic policy, etc. 

What I always seem to get a good chuckle out of is the idea that Republicans are somehow more fiscally responsible. I mean, the current administration has been spending money like a drunken sailor for the past couple years all the while financing it via foreign debt. How do the so called fiscally responsible Republicans explain the mega medicare entitlement Bush signed a couple years back? What will happen when the Chinese decide they want their dollars back? IMO, this kind of irresponsibility it untenable... 

Yes, "Democraps" might want to tax you death but the current "Republicans" are spending our tax money like its on fire.

But what do I know...


----------



## Bigwaved

muziq said:


> Well, Dave, I'm warm and fuzzy, but not because of this thread title :r


One word:

Shower!

:r


----------



## Da Klugs

Catering to the 32% it seems...


----------



## BlueHavanaII

Just curious...
the Dems say we are spending billions a week on the war.
Isn't this partially money we'd be spending on the military anyway if we werent involved in a war? (Like personnel salaries, maintenance, etc).

What's the war really costing???


----------



## macjoe53

adsantos13 said:


> Let me preface this post by saying I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to fiscal policy, economic policy, etc.
> 
> What I always seem to get a good chuckle out of is the idea that Republicans are somehow more fiscally responsible. I mean, the current administration has been spending money like a drunken sailor for the past couple years all the while financing it via foreign debt. How do the so called fiscally responsible Republicans explain the mega medicare entitlement Bush signed a couple years back? What will happen when the Chinese decide they want their dollars back? IMO, this kind of irresponsibility it untenable...
> 
> Yes, "Democraps" might want to tax you death but the current "Republicans" are spending our tax money like its on fire.
> 
> But what do I know...


First, I'm going to agree with most of what you have to say. But I think the mega medicare entitlement Bush signed was not a Republican program per se, I think it was more to the democrat/bi-partisan members of the house and senate that pushed that through. Yes, the Republicans are spending money, but that doesn't make them worse than the Democrats who are currently in control of both houses and whose track record is to increase entitlements to make their voter base happy.

That being said, I'm an independent voter. I generally vote for the candidate that most suits my middle-of-the-road to conservative ideals. That doesn't mean I'm real happy with either party or the current president. But we have to work with what we have...


----------



## Bigwaved

BlueHavanaII said:


> Just curious...
> the Dems say we are spending billions a week on the war.
> Isn't this partially money we'd be spending on the military anyway if we werent involved in a war? (Like personnel salaries, maintenance, etc).
> 
> What's the war really costing???


I believe it could be easily found by taking what has been spent above and beyond the approved military budget before it started plus any costs incurred that are related to the war, but I am not an accountant or did I sleep at the Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

Da Klugs said:


> Catering to the 32% it seems...


And I can guarantee you that most of those 32% think you are not paying enough taxes Dave.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

BTW, Pelosi already said that this bill was never supported by the Dem leadership, so it's pretty much DOA. It was more of a policical stunt by a few than a serious bill, IMO.


----------



## borndead1

adsantos13 said:


> Let me preface this post by saying I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to fiscal policy, economic policy, etc.
> 
> What I always seem to get a good chuckle out of is the idea that Republicans are somehow more fiscally responsible. I mean, the current administration has been spending money like a drunken sailor for the past couple years all the while financing it via foreign debt. How do the so called fiscally responsible Republicans explain the mega medicare entitlement Bush signed a couple years back? What will happen when the Chinese decide they want their dollars back? IMO, this kind of irresponsibility it untenable...
> 
> Yes, "Democraps" might want to tax you death but the current "Republicans" are spending our tax money like its on fire.
> 
> But what do I know...


I was going to post a reply in this thread until I read this.

Well said and right on the money.


----------



## BeerDefender

adsantos13 said:


> Let me preface this post by saying I'm more of a libertarian when it comes to fiscal policy, economic policy, etc.
> 
> What I always seem to get a good chuckle out of is the idea that Republicans are somehow more fiscally responsible. I mean, the current administration has been spending money like a drunken sailor for the past couple years all the while financing it via foreign debt. How do the so called fiscally responsible Republicans explain the mega medicare entitlement Bush signed a couple years back? What will happen when the Chinese decide they want their dollars back? IMO, this kind of irresponsibility it untenable...
> 
> Yes, "Democraps" might want to tax you death but the current "Republicans" are spending our tax money like its on fire.
> 
> But what do I know...


I agree, very well said. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but not quite a libertarian. I vote Republican and work for Republican candidates whom I believe are true to the Republican platform. If you compare the records of the current R's in office with the platform you'll see there's nearly no resemblance.


----------



## mdtaggart

Instead of raising taxes, why don't we take some of the Iraq oil money to pay for the war. It's only fair. Many have accused the US of going to war for the oil, soooooo, lets get it. :ss


----------



## AAlmeter

mdtaggart said:


> Instead of raising taxes, why don't we take some of the Iraq oil money to pay for the war. It's only fair. Many have accused the US of going to war for the oil, soooooo, lets get it. :ss


Can't. It would be a PR nightmare. It is a good idea though, they created the mess, they can pay to fix it.

Its the same reason why haven't we gone through and cleaned house like we did in Germany? PR nightmare.

Let's face it. We're a country of candy-asses. The spirit that once drove the young men of our greatest generation to enlist after Pearl Harbor is gone. We called those same great young men butchers and murderers during Vietnam. Now that the limps and libs have received flack for that, they instead "support the troops but not the mission". Just like the PETA member who supports the butcher, but not his job. :BS

I think a lot of the problem is that we have a very strong media with nothing to counter it. Yes, the media is liberal, but sometimes life hands you a shit sandwich. It is something Americans have to deal with. What is needed is a strong president. A president who can remind us daily of the great work our men and women are doing over in the Middle East. A president who is willing to blow the Hajj out of a Mosque because its being used as a weapons cache. Who gives a flying F if some sick assclown in a foreign country thinks its holy? I think my F-150 is holy, won't stop the police from ticketing me if I'm doing 55 in a 30.

A lot of simple people try to paint this as a war for oil, or daddy's war, or some other shit they overheard while waiting for a grande mocha light frappucino with a sprinkle of ssssssssssssssssss-cinnamon at a Starbuckssssssssssss. Unfortunately, this war goes a lot deeper and has a lot more implications than something done for the hell of it.

Back to the original topic. There are a lot of nitwits who seek out any reason to defame the effort of our troops and the president. It could be helping an old lady cross the street or taking down a totalitarian regime in the middle of the Middle East and introducing free thought and free trade. No matter how noble the pursuit, it still ain't sending welfare checks to this shit areas of town....so its a bad idea in their book. Paying for the war with Iraqi war money will open up further avenues for more nitwit bitching. On top of that, every dollar that Iraq has available to them and open to capitalism as they emerge as a new nation will have a great impact on their ability to fend off Islamic totalitarianism and build a free capitalistic society.


----------



## Simplified

muziq said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Slandering one party over the other *isn't* going to do any good--they're both culpable.


It will be very interesting when we get a new President and if he or she is a Democrat I definitely expect to pay more taxes.:2


----------



## Bax

AAlmeter said:


> On top of that, every dollar that Iraq has available to them and open to capitalism as they emerge as a new nation will have a great impact on their ability to fend off Islamic totalitarianism and build a free capitalistic society.


\\Excellent point! Sometimes you just need to put the seeds in the ground.


----------



## SeanGAR

I much prefer the Republicans "borrow from the Chinese and spend" policy than the Democrats "tax and spend". Let everybody's grandkids pay the bills ... whoo hoo ... I'm gonna go out and buy me up a 50" flatscreen and a master case of PSD4s and put it on my unborn grandkids tab. Note to self: ignore the potential for fiscal disaster from borrowing from a bellicose communist dictatorship with nukes and live it up .. whoo hoo .. look at McFadden run on a 50" HD screen .... ba-bee. 

The political differences in Iraq suggest that it is more likely to become another Lebanon, but with oil, than a Chile. A remarkable achievement, and well worth the 500 billion and counting that we've spend there.


----------



## Fenwick

BlueHavanaII said:


> Just curious...
> the Dems say we are spending billions a week on the war.
> Isn't this partially money we'd be spending on the military anyway if we werent involved in a war? (Like personnel salaries, maintenance, etc).
> 
> What's the war really costing???


Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.

I personally like not having buildings on our home turf being blown up anymore. Has anyone noticed how ever since we invaded Iraq, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks here? As far as I'm concerned, the "war" is worth every penny we're paying for it and a very small price to pay so that no more innocent civilians here have to die like they did on September 11, 2001.

What the ignorant whiny liberals refuse to understand is there are absolute nut job extremists who are literally insane who want to kill Americans and they will stop at nothing to do this. Their sick culture glorifies martyrdom and there's nothing we can do about it except fight back until those stupid ignorant excuses for human beings are either annihilated or come to their senses and give up. My guess is the former but we can't give up until one of those two things come true.

Let me ask you this coronagigante and the rest of you liberals, would you rather have them shooting at pedestrians and blowing up cars in Houston or Baghdad?

We're kicking their sorry asses all over the place over there and we're winning this war, plain and simple. Just ask anyone who's actually over there instead of listening to the filtered media and the pathetic anti-wars losers here who have no idea what they're talking about.

Like him or not, President Bush is doing an outstanding job and our armed forces are the best in the world, no doubt about it.


----------



## macjoe53

Fenwick said:


> Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.
> 
> I personally like not having buildings on our home turf being blown up anymore. Has anyone noticed how ever since we invaded Iraq, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks here? As far as I'm concerned, the "war" is worth every penny we're paying for it and a very small price to pay so that no more innocent civilians here have to die like they did on September 11, 2001.
> 
> What the ignorant whiny liberals refuse to understand is there are absolute nut job extremists who are literally insane who want to kill Americans and they will stop at nothing to do this. Their sick culture glorifies martyrdom and there's nothing we can do about it except fight back until those stupid ignorant excuses for human beings are either annihilated or come to their senses and give up. My guess is the former but we can't give up until one of those two things come true.
> 
> Let me ask you this coronagigante and the rest of you liberals, would you rather have them shooting at pedestrians and blowing up cars in Houston or Baghdad?
> 
> We're kicking their sorry asses all over the place over there and we're winning this war, plain and simple. Just ask anyone who's actually over there instead of listening to the filtered media and the pathetic anti-wars losers here who have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> Like him or not, President Bush is doing an outstanding job and our armed forces are the best in the world, no doubt about it.


Better be careful there, you might offend the leftists...


----------



## AAlmeter

:r

There's gonna be some wadded and twisted pink panties over this one.

:tu


----------



## Kayak_Rat

AAlmeter said:


> :r
> 
> There's gonna be some wadded and twisted pink panties over this one.
> 
> :tu


No responses yet? They must be formaing a plan of attack.....or they are using the "if we ignore them, they will leave" tactic.


----------



## AAlmeter

Kayak_Rat said:


> No responses yet? They must be formaing a plan of attack.....or they are using the "if we ignore them, they will leave" tactic.


I'll step in for them

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

TAX MONEY SHOULD GO TO THE LAZY NOT TO THE WAR!

DADDY'S WAR HAS ALMOST KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN TED KENNEDY'S CAR!

And don't you even try to refute what I just said. It's gospel, you're just an ignorant *******. You need me to tell you what to think.

I feel dirty and liberaly now


----------



## kdhoffma

Fenwick said:


> Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.
> 
> I personally like not having buildings on our home turf being blown up anymore. Has anyone noticed how ever since we invaded Iraq, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks here? As far as I'm concerned, the "war" is worth every penny we're paying for it and a very small price to pay so that no more innocent civilians here have to die like they did on September 11, 2001.
> 
> What the ignorant whiny liberals refuse to understand is there are absolute nut job extremists who are literally insane who want to kill Americans and they will stop at nothing to do this. Their sick culture glorifies martyrdom and there's nothing we can do about it except fight back until those stupid ignorant excuses for human beings are either annihilated or come to their senses and give up. My guess is the former but we can't give up until one of those two things come true.
> 
> Let me ask you this coronagigante and the rest of you liberals, would you rather have them shooting at pedestrians and blowing up cars in Houston or Baghdad?
> 
> We're kicking their sorry asses all over the place over there and we're winning this war, plain and simple. Just ask anyone who's actually over there instead of listening to the filtered media and the pathetic anti-wars losers here who have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> Like him or not, President Bush is doing an outstanding job and our armed forces are the best in the world, no doubt about it.


You're right, I would hate to go back to before the war in Iraq when there were all of those terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists on US soil.

Geez, talk about falling for the neo-con company line: "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." As long as the bush administration slaps that bumper sticker on it, they can get away with anything. Tap our phones, read our mail, and take away our personal freedoms? It's all right because it keeps us safe from the terrorists!


----------



## AAlmeter

kdhoffma said:


> You're right, I would hate to go back to before the war in Iraq when there were all of those terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists on US soil.
> 
> Geez, talk about falling for the neo-con company line: "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." As long as the bush administration slaps that bumper sticker on it, they can get away with anything. Tap our phones, read our mail, and take away our personal freedoms? It's all right because it keeps us safe from the terrorists!


Yeah, they've really nailed a lot of US citizens with that Patriot act. What a disaster that's been. You may want to refresh yourself on the liberal talking points, they dropped that line a long time ago.


----------



## Kayak_Rat

AAlmeter said:


> I'll step in for them
> 
> BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!
> 
> NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
> 
> TAX MONEY SHOULD GO TO THE LAZY NOT TO THE WAR!
> 
> DADDY'S WAR HAS ALMOST KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN TED KENNEDY'S CAR!
> 
> And don't you even try to refute what I just said. It's gospel, *you're just an ignorant ********. You need me to tell you what to think.
> 
> I feel dirty and liberaly now


I do have all my teeth though.


----------



## Kayak_Rat

AAlmeter said:


> Yeah, they've really nailed a lot of US citizens with that Patriot act. What a disaster that's been. You may want to refresh yourself on the liberal talking points, they dropped that line a long time ago.


I believe that ended when they actually re-read the patriot act and noticed the hightened restrictions on phone tappings and the like......I mean come on. Like this wasnt happening before.


----------



## AAlmeter

Kayak_Rat said:


> I do have all my teeth though.


That's just because Hillarycare hasn't come to be yet. You'll be looking like a socialist brit soon enough


----------



## kdhoffma

AAlmeter said:


> Yeah, they've really nailed a lot of US citizens with that Patriot act. What a disaster that's been. You may want to refresh yourself on the liberal talking points, they dropped that line a long time ago.


I get it now, as long as they don't use it to nail "US Citizens" it's ok to take away constitutional rights and civil liberties.


----------



## AAlmeter

kdhoffma said:


> I get it now, as long as they don't use it to nail "US Citizens" it's ok to take away constitutional rights and civil liberties.


You're getting the idea. We don't guarantee the rights of Russians to own a gun, but the Constitution does guarantee that right to a US citizen. I see no reason to expand our Constitution to those who do not care to become a legal citizen.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER

AAlmeter said:


> I see no reason to expand our Constitution to those who do not care to become a legal citizen.


But, but, we're all citizens of the earth! Besides, killing infidels is part of the terrorists religion! I thought you guys supported freedom of religion! :tu

Wow, this thread has gone awry.


----------



## hova45

The biggest problem is that we are spending way over our means, and it needs to stop. Our dollar goes down to sh*t almost everyday now and no one is really getting any raises but prices are sky rocketing. I guess it is the price you pay for freedom:hn


----------



## calistogey

The wars will end, economies will bounce back just as global warming will reverse itself.

Just happy I'm not living in an underdeveloped country as an uninsured and underpaid cigar roller.


----------



## bigr8131963

It's just a matter of time til they tax the air we breath:BS


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Fenwick said:


> Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.


Care to substantiate that statement?


----------



## replicant_argent

Hang on just a minute boys, let me find the biggest pot in the kitchen....

Okay, got it.......

Give me another minute to... you know.... fill it.....

GRUNT<<<< GRUNT<<<<<<<<

now that all the usual suspects are here, there should be no problem having it professionally stirred.


----------



## billybarue

I'll try to avoid the other stuff and get back to the tax issue, especially as it relates to your standard of living.

IMO, as the saying goes - taxes are simply inevitable. Over 50% of my money goes off to Uncle "Sugar" (Sam, and his state minions) every year and I have a hard time getting too worked up about it because of the great country we all get to live in. I ain't thrilled about it, but as I say I don't get too excited about it either. Because I don't like it, It is a very large influence in how I vote - that is how I can change it. 

But whatever your tax rate is, it is inevitable and up to you to save beyond what you pay in taxes. Save and than save some more. Like voting, "save often and early". Save in all kinds of ways - including non-typical savings vehicles like real estate!! :chk. A benefit of the stable society we live in where property rights are (in general) sacrosanct is you can rest easy in the power of compounding interest in our market based economy. It has proven itself for a very long time. There are some serious threats on the horizon that make me uneasy though - huge debts for example. And there will always be cycles in the various financial markets, but beyond those it is up to you to take care of yourself for the future. Taxes are a mere impediment to that goal. I hold out no hope of corporate retirement or Social Security (and the requisite taxes needed to keep it afloat).

I'll do my best to keep the purse strings tight on my monies and the keep Feds "out of my chili". But beyond that, just scrap and save and you will have a comfortable (hopefully very comfortable retirement). Simply this is the old Fable of the ant and the grasshopper, just apply it and don't worry too much about taxes - as we all know they are just an inevitability.

FWIW

PS - Pete I can't read your post, what's up with that. No matter really - you never have anything of value to say or worth reading anyhow :r:r


----------



## SeanGAR

I remember Rummie was asked how much the war would cost on TV before the invasion. When people raised the specter of a 500 billion dollar final bill he scoffed ... and told us more in the 40-60 billion range. 

Where do you people who think Republicans are fiscally responsible figure this money has come from? I'll give you a hint .... it isn't Cheney's ass.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

It's old Lawrence Lindsey I feel sorry for. He was Director of the National Economic Council (2001-2002), and the Assistant to the President on Economic Policy for the U.S. President George W. Bush. He played a leading role in formulating President Bush's $1.35 billion tax cut plan. He left the White House in December 2002 after he estimated the cost of the Iraq war could reach (a mere) $200 billion.


----------



## Fenwick

AAlmeter said:


> I'll step in for them
> 
> BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!
> 
> NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
> 
> TAX MONEY SHOULD GO TO THE LAZY NOT TO THE WAR!
> 
> DADDY'S WAR HAS ALMOST KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN TED KENNEDY'S CAR!
> 
> And don't you even try to refute what I just said. It's gospel, you're just an ignorant *******. You need me to tell you what to think.
> 
> I feel dirty and liberaly now


:r

Too funny!

Watch out, the democrats.org spiders will find your post and make you one of theirs!:w


----------



## Fenwick

kdhoffma said:


> You're right, I would hate to go back to before the war in Iraq when there were all of those terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists on US soil.
> 
> Geez, talk about falling for the neo-con company line: "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." As long as the bush administration slaps that bumper sticker on it, they can get away with anything. Tap our phones, read our mail, and take away our personal freedoms? It's all right because it keeps us safe from the terrorists!


Well in case you forgot, they did try to blow up the World Trade Center with bombs in the basement in February of 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

Who was the president then and what did he do about it?


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Corona Gigante said:


> Fenwick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to substantiate that statement?
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

Why not quit your trolling and go review a cigar? :tu


----------



## replicant_argent

Those that can't seem to leave their high school histrionics in the past seem to repeat history by continuing to shit stir.



My lord... enough.


----------



## macjoe53

Where's a moderator when you need one...


----------



## ResIpsa

macjoe53 said:


> Where's a moderator when you need one...


I'm neither Republican nor Demorcrat, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm sincerely interested in your response to this question:

You begin a thread with this title, obviously intended to offend anyone who is a Democrat:

*"Another tax from the Democraps"*

*Now you want to know where the Mods are? What exactly did you think was going to occur???:2*


----------



## SeanGAR

Fenwick said:


> Well in case you forgot, they did try to blow up the World Trade Center with bombs in the basement in February of 1993.


Iraqis did that?



> Those that can't seem to leave their high school histrionics in the past seem to repeat history by continuing to shit stir.


You're speaking to the originator of this thread I presume.


----------



## replicant_argent

SeanGAR said:


> You're speaking to the originator of this thread I presume.


It is very likely, considering the wording, placement, and selective descriptors I used, that I may have been referring to more than one poster.
Of course, I could be wrong, and my opinions are very often better kept to myself. I wouldn't want to offer a prize winning comment when the actual prize was of questionable provenance.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

replicant_argent said:


> Those that can't seem to leave their high school histrionics in the past seem to repeat history by continuing to shit stir.
> 
> My lord... enough.





macjoe53 said:


> Where's a moderator when you need one...


Excuse me guys, we're trying to have a civil discussion about the cost of the war here.

Feel free not to contribute, but if you do, please try to keep it on topic. Thanks.


----------



## replicant_argent

Corona Gigante said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Why not quit your trolling and go review a cigar? :tu


My sincere apologies, Nicky. I took this (and your previous statement) as the equivalent of a high school bully poking his finger into the shoulder of another and egging him on. I must have been mistaken. My impressions are that every time I read a political thread here, you are in the middle of it, and my impressions must have overtaken my wisdom. Perhaps my initial take on that peculiar coincidence left something my politically and semantically untrained mind must have been abysmally unqualified to register.



ResIpsa said:


> I'm neither Republican nor Demorcrat, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'm sincerely interested in your response to this question:
> 
> You begin a thread with this title, obviously intended to offend anyone who is a Democrat:
> 
> *"Another tax from the Democraps"*
> 
> *Now you want to know where the Mods are? What exactly did you think was going to occur???:2*





Corona Gigante said:


> Excuse me guys, we're trying to have a civil discussion about the cost of the war here.
> 
> Feel free not to contribute, but if you do, please try to keep it on topic. Thanks.


My initial postings were perhaps a bit crass, but these posts are about as amusing as being Henry'd to death.
Vic, my _actual_ sincere apologies for any shit stirring of my own.


----------



## AAlmeter

DISCLAIMER: THIS RAMBLES

Pete,

I can't say that I agree or disagree with your statements. God knows it makes a little bubble come up into my throat to even think of agreeing with CG (I'm going in for a full psychiatric evaluation tomorrow because of it), but he did express an opinion. Was it a silly Limey/Commie one? Of course! But that's why we love him here on CS. He is our own little Stalin/queer eye for the cigar guy! Given my past here regarding political threads, it becomes very difficult to recall just who I agree with and who I don't, as there are just so many that I have had the pleasure of debating with. But as I recall, you and I were quite close in our opinions (again, this is just based on my memory, I could be wrong).

While I do agree that the hounding after a week or so for political reasons and the constant additions to a dead 'Red State' thread are a little, well, sad...they do no harm and really do a number to show the state of liberalism. As much as the average Joe with an IQ above 85 disagrees with liberalism, it is funny for us to watch it flail around denouncing the war, Bush, common sense, individuality, responsibility, all the things that made America great. But hey, some have moved here from other countries and want to transform us into their homeland. Good for them. Some do it through World Trade Center bombings or plane hijackings, some do it through cigar boards. So let's just look at the positive....it could be worse.

Onwards, I do think that your post about shit stirring was quite funny as it really served no purpose other than to stir shit. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, stirring shit is essentially causing trouble while bringing forth no good ideas. As I said, I do not recall with great accuracy your political leanings, but I do remember having respect for what you've posted in the past, so you are :tu in my book whether you lean to the left or the right. That post, however, was less than that.

And to whoever the hell asked for the mods to step in....Christ, seek help. If you encourage that with some, next thing you know every non-cigar discussion on here will be limited to what toppings we like on our pancakes on the day after a herf with a select group of people.

Above all, we need to remain respectful in our posts. Unfortunately, much intelligent non-cigar related discussion is under a lot of heat lately.

Granted, I have called out 2-3 members who post in political threads in this particular thread, and 2 or so who post in well, I don't know how the hell they got so many posts, but they did. So this may seem as a bit of an oxymoron, but remember, as you enter into the realm of politics, keep your comments closely regulated. Sometimes, it is fine to go out on a limb with the comments. For example, I'd feel completely at ease calling SeanGar a Hillary-tit-sucking tweed-wearing Canuck, but thats because I know him well and would feel comfortable calling him that to his face in jest. He would likely call me something similar.....in jest. Calling others that, however, would be crossing the line for me as we do not have that personal relationship that overcomes political lines.

As usual, I have much more to say on this topic and many more, but my keyboard is smoking.

Let's see if I get banned for this one!


----------



## replicant_argent

AAlmeter said:


> DISCLAIMER: THIS RAMBLES
> 
> Onwards, I do think that your post about shit stirring was quite funny as it really served no purpose other than to stir shit. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, stirring shit is essentially causing trouble while bringing forth no good ideas.
> 
> Let's see if I get banned for this one!


It was... perhaps, a pre-emptive strike after seeing the turn of the thread and the usual suspects starting to bristle.

A poor one at best, my condolences to my once sharper wit, and to your having to read it, Adam.
Sometimes I simply babble and there are far too many jokes bouncing around in my mostly vacant skull at times that I don't convey the proper (and FAAAAR funnier) ones.


----------



## pistol

Man, terror attacks suck, war sucks, tax increases suck, and I'd bet a serious recession would suck too. I'm also willing to bet that as all three of these things happen (or continue to happen), these political threads are just going to get hotter and hotter...


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Fenwick said:


> Exactly! The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.


Care to substantiate that statement?

By "substantiate", I mean that you'll have to start by telling me what how much I "would like you to believe" that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost to date, then you would have to come up with a credible source to show I am mistaken--more credible, anyway, than the General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the source for the figures I find most credible.


----------



## macjoe53

AAlmeter said:


> DISCLAIMER: THIS RAMBLES
> 
> Pete,
> 
> I can't say that I agree or disagree with your statements. God knows it makes a little bubble come up into my throat to even think of agreeing with CG (I'm going in for a full psychiatric evaluation tomorrow because of it), but he did express an opinion. Was it a silly Limey/Commie one? Of course! But that's why we love him here on CS. He is our own little Stalin/queer eye for the cigar guy! Given my past here regarding political threads, it becomes very difficult to recall just who I agree with and who I don't, as there are just so many that I have had the pleasure of debating with. But as I recall, you and I were quite close in our opinions (again, this is just based on my memory, I could be wrong).
> 
> While I do agree that the hounding after a week or so for political reasons and the constant additions to a dead 'Red State' thread are a little, well, sad...they do no harm and really do a number to show the state of liberalism. As much as the average Joe with an IQ above 85 disagrees with liberalism, it is funny for us to watch it flail around denouncing the war, Bush, common sense, individuality, responsibility, all the things that made America great. But hey, some have moved here from other countries and want to transform us into their homeland. Good for them. Some do it through World Trade Center bombings or plane hijackings, some do it through cigar boards. So let's just look at the positive....it could be worse.
> 
> Onwards, I do think that your post about shit stirring was quite funny as it really served no purpose other than to stir shit. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, stirring shit is essentially causing trouble while bringing forth no good ideas. As I said, I do not recall with great accuracy your political leanings, but I do remember having respect for what you've posted in the past, so you are :tu in my book whether you lean to the left or the right. That post, however, was less than that.
> 
> And to whoever the hell asked for the mods to step in....Christ, seek help. If you encourage that with some, next thing you know every non-cigar discussion on here will be limited to what toppings we like on our pancakes on the day after a herf with a select group of people.
> 
> Above all, we need to remain respectful in our posts. Unfortunately, much intelligent non-cigar related discussion is under a lot of heat lately.
> 
> Granted, I have called out 2-3 members who post in political threads in this particular thread, and 2 or so who post in well, I don't know how the hell they got so many posts, but they did. So this may seem as a bit of an oxymoron, but remember, as you enter into the realm of politics, keep your comments closely regulated. Sometimes, it is fine to go out on a limb with the comments. For example, I'd feel completely at ease calling SeanGar a Hillary-tit-sucking tweed-wearing Canuck, but thats because I know him well and would feel comfortable calling him that to his face in jest. He would likely call me something similar.....in jest. Calling others that, however, would be crossing the line for me as we do not have that personal relationship that overcomes political lines.
> 
> As usual, I have much more to say on this topic and many more, but my keyboard is smoking.
> 
> Let's see if I get banned for this one!


You are right.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

macjoe53 said:


> You are right.


_Waaay _to the right. What was your first clue? :ss


----------



## AAlmeter

Corona Gigante said:


> _Waaay _to the right. What was your first clue? :ss


I'm a moderate. Everyone else is just a brain dead leftist hippy. :tu


----------



## Mister Moo

ResIpsa said:


> ...this title, obviously intended to offend anyone who is a Democrat:
> 
> *"Another tax from the Democraps"*
> 
> *Now you want to know where the Mods are? What exactly did you think was going to occur???:2*


Really. I'm so pleased CS made this little feedlot to keep a few mouthy political mutts behind an electric fence. (Personally, I always give the A'HARP a pass because he knows so damn much about cigars AND lives his life as a public servant.) The threads title and fenwicks discourteous mouth aside, this is an interesting discussion.

So, then. I take it we're not paying off our debts by pumping more and more $100 bbl oil out of the Gulf of Mexico? Damn - and Chevron REALLY was busy out there just yesterday. Seems like they could cover the whole bill as a favor to me. Perhaps they're just waiting for $200 bbl before making a contribution?

As with coffee grinders I also take the long view with human being grinders these days. You get that way when you know dead soldiers. Never too cynical about our masters, I know now that Viet Nam actually had nothing to do with our need for tin, chromium and a few other dicey strategic metals. It ended up that it was all about whose accounts in Hanoi the profits would be deposited too; our masters (then Kennedy, MacNamera, Johnson, Nixon, Agnew, Kissinger, etc., a pretty eclectic spectrum, isn't it?) really WERE so out of touch that they believed a few thousand dozen dead Americans would make our future safer. Or, in Lyndon's hogtied case, he believed no generals, no diplomats - nothing at all. Indeed. We might not be safer from the Chicoms today but we're certainly dressing better, for less. Cheap shirts and pajamas (none black, I notice) from profit-motivated factories in Ho Chi Minh City keep us in affordable warcquones. Now there's an effing irony. If only I'd known in the long haul I was fighting for the disintegration of the US textile industry so Vietnamese communist bosses could profit, 30-years later, from cheap skilled labor in Saigon. Oh yeah. And shoes. We earned boatloads of cheap shirts and Nike shoes made from child labor. You really have to take the long view to see how many carloads of Vasoline American policy can allocate for your a$$. And here I really am talking about the best of intentions for the free world and all that jazz but! You don't have to twist the facts to drown in (some) irony. All of you with the absolute certainty about how more dead arabs and more dead Americans in Iraq makes us safe - first shed some tears for my brothers blood left in Quang Tri Province, betrayed by ill-conceived policy, before you tell me how our ME policy will play out 30 years from now. You really ought to think this out a little harder for your unborn children.

I give credit to all ME policy experts out there in Cigarland. If you have certainty about the correctness of our policy then it is probably based on what you wish was true. While wishing is not a sound basis for strategic policy you're right up there with the neocons, senators and representatives who lied and wished us into the difficult position we're in. (I admit it - I bit on the underground germ factories even if the UN didn't.) They are all doing quite well since they left the administration, by the way. And their children are not dead because they never elected to serve. How nice for them.

New day. I am sure that, with all the oil geniuses we have in Washington, it is only their infinite wisdom keeping us safe and holding oil under $500 bbl this year. I wonder how we will finance and win the parallel spending war that has already begun against Hugo Chavez (at $100 bbl. he can buy a lot of cordite, right?) when he starts aiming missles toward the Gulf of Mexico. Boy. That'll piss off the boys at Chevron. How safe are we making the boys out on those rigs today?

New day. Oops. New threat assessment. No nuke program in Iran for the past two years. Stop the B2s! Oops again? Oh well.

There was something less insulting about laying down hide for an ideal. Tell me where the ideal is, today, please? Financing Exxon's restructuring shouldn't figure in. Self deceit is thinking that our ME policy, and the cost of that policy, is paying off long term security dividends. If you think it is then you don't know how to read a history book or a newspaper. There are two wars that need winning. One is a national security war requiring leadership vision and talent, American will and an energy policy; the other war is one of ideas. We haven't started on the first one yet and we're losing the second. I love this country and have kissed the ground more than once but my love for America does not obviate the certainty we'll never be secure when policy includes secret prisons, kidnapping, elimination of habeas corpus and hair-splitting on the definition of torture to further a war for oil.

Sorry. Was this about taxes? I am off topic again, darn it. And I don't do political. Never mind.


----------



## Mister Moo

You know what? Add this to the post above. Reducing issues of the greatest national importance, issues touching patriotism, national security policy and the requisite willingness to die (or send others to their deaths) to defend the constitution of the United States to a FakeNews catch phrase like "DemoCrap" misses the boat. Dropping a political slur label on someone whose opinion differs from yours is is cheaper than dimestore perfume and smells worse. It is a less than clever way to bypass original thinking and insures you will never convert that person to your position.

When you've missed common courtesy in presenting your position you have betrayed your own position and, probably, demonstrated it lacks the muscle to stand on its' own.

I am fed up to here with a name callers - particularly the uninvested anonymous ones - who can't create a well thought out political position without calling someone else a dickhead. It just makes me want to call them.... D'OH!!! NAMES! :r

Jeepers. A war funding thread under "Tobacco Legislation" - close, but no cigar (heh heh); and this fenwick runs his mouth but doesn't have the cajones to post his own personal information.


----------



## Fenwick

Corona Gigante said:


> Care to substantiate that statement?
> 
> By "substantiate", I mean that you'll have to start by telling me what how much I "would like you to believe" that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has cost to date, then you would have to come up with a credible source to show I am mistaken--more credible, anyway, than the General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the source for the figures I find most credible.


Just let it go nicky and please do us all a favor and resist your urge to continue to troll for trouble.

Everyone here already has your number so there's no need for you to continue to confirm what we all already know about you.


----------



## Fenwick

Mister Moo said:


> and this fenwick runs his mouth but doesn't have the cajones to post his own personal information.


What does whether or not I post my personal information have to do with anything? Please enlighten us.


----------



## Bigwaved

Fenwick said:


> Just let it go nicky and please do us all a favor and resist your urge to continue to troll for trouble.
> 
> Everyone here already has your number so there's no need for you to continue to confirm what we all already know about you.


You find no irony in that you called him out by name with a claim about the cost of the occupation of Iraq? He is asking you to show him where your claim that the war is costing a fraction of what the General Accounting Office is reporting. Is it too hard to describe putting an a blindfold and throwing darts at random numbers on a wall? Or, are you referencing some report or account of what is being spent?


----------



## Smoked

I don't usually participate in these types of threads because I don't know all that much about the subject. After reading some of the posts I would have to say that neither do some of you. It's my opinion that you can't put a price on protecting our fine country so the cost of the war should be irrelevant. Is it possible that there are reasons for the war that our government has not informed us about? Could there have been intelligence obtained that we are not privileged to? I ask this because of the many reasons that we have been given for the war. There must be something else that we don't know about. Like I said, I don't really know all of that much about the subject. I don't belong to any type of political party.


----------



## dayplanner

Fenwick said:


> Just let it go nicky and please do us all a favor and resist your urge to continue to troll for trouble.
> 
> Everyone here already has your number so there's no need for you to continue to confirm what we all already know about you.


Let what go? He asked you what info you had about the cost of the war being being much lower than what is being stated. You can't just say something like that and not back it up. Until you post post some hard facts, it's just a nice little conspiracy theory on your part. The only one trolling for trouble here is you Fenwick.


----------



## Mister Moo

Fenwick said:


> What does whether or not I post my personal information have to do with anything? Please enlighten us.


Oh boy! Enlightenment! An excess of testosterone is not compensation for the absence of common courtesy?

I welcome a good argument about anything from anyone but guarantee an anonymous name-caller who buzzes in and disrespects another member is going to be more successful elsewhere. Try a bit of introspection and some manners.


----------



## muziq

Mister Moo said:


> Oh boy! Enlightenment! An excess of testosterone is not compensation for the absence of common courtesy?
> 
> I welcome a good argument about anything from anyone but guarantee an anonymous name-caller who buzzes in and disrespects another member is going to be more successful elsewhere. Try a bit of introspection and some manners.


Beautifully stated, Dan. Could not agree more regarding the general tone of this discussion. Seems like we're already to the name-calling stage and we still have a year of this highly-visible partisan debate to go. Ugh...


----------



## burninator

muziq said:


> Beautifully stated, Dan. Could not agree more regarding the general tone of this discussion. Seems like we're already to the name-calling stage and we still have a year of this highly-visible partisan debate to go. Ugh...


And suddenly, no matter which party gets your vote, both have won.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl

Fenwick said:


> Just let it go nicky and please do us all a favor and resist your urge to continue to troll for trouble.
> 
> Everyone here already has your number so there's no need for you to continue to confirm what we all already know about you.


----------



## Pablo

Corona Gigante said:


> Excuse me guys, we're trying to have a civil discussion about the cost of the war here.
> 
> Feel free not to contribute, but if you do, please try to keep it on topic. Thanks.


Civil?

We all know that political threads go right down the crapper here at CS. It's usually the same folks, taking the same sides. I have no problem with any of your opinions, it's just that we seem to debate the same thing over and over.

So, understanding that civilized debate is healthy, and there is no way we will ever get away from these until something is done:

I offer all who would prefer to debate this further the following website:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/

It uses vbulletin, so you will be comfortable and familiar with the interface, and it is all about civilized political debate! Talk about a win/win...go get 'em gents!


----------



## IHT

kdhoffma said:


> As long as the bush administration slaps that bumper sticker on it, they can get away with anything. Tap our phones, read our mail, and take away our personal freedoms? It's all right because it keeps us safe from the terrorists!


my one and only post in this topic will be:

oh, you mean like FDR did during WWII???

btw - you were losing your person freedoms long before g. bush was in office. 
you're on a cigar board and don't recognize that your freedom to smoke in a public place has been infringed upon?? your right to choose what you can/can't eat??


----------



## mdtaggart

When it comes to the cost of the war, one should factor in the cost of the military prior to the war. I think, but do not know, that the numbers in the media do not reflect this information. military cost today - military cost pre-war = the cost of the war. I think. :ss
I think some folks quickly forget what was going on prior to the Iraq invasion,
Sadam was not allowing open inspection etc... Many dems voted for the war on the same info that GW had and many top dems claimed Iraq to be a major threat to the US. So, let us all try to rememer that one person did not start this war and many now want out. I would ask those who want out, how should we do it. It is easy to say get the troops out but whats the plan?
Flame retardent applied...fire away.. :chk


----------



## SeanGAR

mdtaggart said:


> When it comes to the cost of the war, one should factor in the cost of the military prior to the war. I think, but do not know, that the numbers in the media do not reflect this information. military cost today - military cost pre-war = the cost of the war. I think. :ss


Makes perfect sense.

Cost of the war ends up ~100 billion per year based on your criteria (I compared 2002 and 2007 entire military budgets @ defenselink.mil). Four and a half years @ 100 billion/year is pretty dang close to the estimates of the war cost which run north of 475 billion.


----------



## glking

And just what is the MSRP for freedom these days?


----------



## SeanGAR

glking said:


> And just what is the MSRP for freedom these days?


Freedom? You weren't free in 2002?


----------



## replicant_argent

SeanGAR said:


> Freedom? You weren't free in 2002?


There was also a cost for freedom in 2002, and in years preceding that. Maintaining an army, air force, marines, coast guard, and navy are the costs of freedom. Those costs remain in maintenance, training, equipping, and retirement, even when those forces are not actively being used in any conflict.


----------



## mdtaggart

SeanGAR said:


> Freedom? You weren't free in 2002?


I am not sure I understand this question or it's intent. Of course we were free in 2002. This is America the land of the free. I think there is cost involved in maintaining that freedom. The world seems to be coming a more dangerous place. The threats to the US are ever changing and so the price of protection will also change. High tech defense does not come cheap. 
We can debate until we r blue in the face about the current war. But again I ask for those who say pull out, how do you see that getting done properly.


----------



## pistol

SeanGAR said:


> Freedom? You weren't free in 2002?


Oh Christ... I stayed out of it until this doozy of a comment. I think you know what he meant Sean. That whole incident where those planes crashed into the trade center/pentagon, remember that? I seem to remember how upset you were when your school was attacked; it hit a little close to home huh? How nice would it have been to be able to prevent that? How many resources would you have committed to preventing that attack? Do you think terrorists have just ceased their hatred for us? Don't you think they are trying to concoct new ways to attack us at this moment? Wouldn't you rather go after them before they come after us? We weren't in a war until 9-11, it seems to me that our freedom was threatened that day, and we reacted with violence. How many times have we been attacked since 9-11? Those terrorists continue to spew their anti-American rhetoric; they continue to encourage attacks on Americans, and yet, he we are, attack free since 9-11. Could better decisions have been made by our Leadership? Of course, hindsight is always 20-20 (trust me, I think we made some huge mistakes in Iraq starting with the deba'athification, but that's another story for another day). However, although our Middle Eastern policy has cost a lot in lives and money, the bottom line is we are safe over here. Our intelligence community is beefed up and on point. They've uncovered and foiled several terror plots (the Spaniards, Israelis, and Europeans haven't been as successful), and they continue to monitor those that would do us harm on a daily basis. We are finding more successes everyday in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraqis are supporting us over there, and our success is evidenced by a lessening casualty count (both Coalition Forces and Iraqi civilian). Like it or not, we are there and this thing is going to take time and resources, but I truly believe in my heart that we are doing a good thing for the people of Iraq/Afghanistan as well as Americans.


----------



## burninator

Can't you people see it? The puns in thread titles are tearing this board apart! :c









:chk


----------



## macjoe53

replicant_argent said:


> There was also a cost for freedom in 2002, and in years preceding that. Maintaining an army, air force, marines, coast guard, and navy are the costs of freedom. Those costs remain in maintenance, training, equipping, and retirement, even when those forces are not actively being used in any conflict.


Don't forget that when the Coast Guard isn't participating in a war they are doing other things for the taxpayers - like saving lives, cleaning up oil spills, etc.


----------



## Fenwick

Ring gague comment from someone named XYZ:



> don't participate in these threads if you have nothing constructive to add.


That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Go back and look at all my posts in this thread and you'll see you are wrong.


----------



## pnoon

Fenwick said:


> Ring gague comment from someone named XYZ:
> 
> That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Go back and look at all my posts in this thread and you'll see you are wrong.


Please keep RG adjustments and comments private.


----------



## icehog3

Fenwick said:


> Ring gague comment from someone named XYZ:
> 
> That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Go back and look at all my posts in this thread and you'll see you are wrong.


Public display of RG comments and PMs is not permitted here w/o the sender's permission. Please refrain in the future.


----------



## icehog3

AAlmeter said:


> And to whoever the hell asked for the mods to step in....Christ, seek help. If you encourage that with some, next thing you know every non-cigar discussion on here will be limited to what toppings we like on our pancakes on the day after a herf with a select group of people.


Maple Syrup, Adam...for the record.


----------



## Bigwaved

Is gague some sort of spin off brand of pasta sauce?


----------



## AAlmeter

icehog3 said:


> Maple Syrup, Adam...for the record.


Hey, I got new boot laces!


----------



## Bigwaved

Fenwick said:


> Ring gague comment from someone named XYZ:
> 
> That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. _*Go back and look at all my posts in this thread and you'll see you are wrong.*_


_
I did what you requested._



Fenwick said:


> Exactly! _*The war is actually only costing a fraction of what the alarmists like coronagigante would like you to believe.
> *_
> I personally like not having buildings on our home turf being blown up anymore. Has anyone noticed how ever since we invaded Iraq, we haven't had any more terrorist attacks here? As far as I'm concerned, the "war" is worth every penny we're paying for it and a very small price to pay so that no more innocent civilians here have to die like they did on September 11, 2001.
> 
> _*What the ignorant whiny liberals refuse to understand *_is there are absolute nut job extremists who are literally insane who want to kill Americans and they will stop at nothing to do this. Their sick culture glorifies martyrdom and there's nothing we can do about it except fight back until those stupid ignorant excuses for human beings are either annihilated or come to their senses and give up. My guess is the former but we can't give up until one of those two things come true.
> 
> Let me ask you this coronagigante and the rest of you liberals, would you rather have them shooting at pedestrians and blowing up cars in Houston or Baghdad?
> 
> We're kicking their sorry asses all over the place over there and we're winning this war, plain and simple. Just ask anyone who's actually over there instead of listening to the filtered media and _*the pathetic anti-wars losers*_ here who have no idea what they're talking about.
> 
> Like him or not, President Bush is doing an outstanding job and our armed forces are the best in the world, no doubt about it.





Fenwick said:


> :r
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> Watch out, the democrats.org spiders will find your post and make you one of theirs!:w





Fenwick said:


> Well in case you forgot, they did try to blow up the World Trade Center with bombs in the basement in February of 1993.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
> 
> Who was the president then and what did he do about it?





Fenwick said:


> *Just let it go nicky and please do us all a favor and resist your urge to continue to troll for trouble.*
> 
> *Everyone here already has your number so there's no need for you to continue to confirm what we all already know about you.*





Fenwick said:


> What does whether or not I post my personal information have to do with anything? Please enlighten us.





Fenwick said:


> Ring gague comment from someone named XYZ:
> 
> That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Go back and look at all my posts in this thread and you'll see you are wrong.


_Maybe the things I highlighted are examples of what that person may have been getting at. I don't know._


----------



## icehog3

AAlmeter said:


> Hey, I got new boot laces!


I got a brand new pair of rollerskates.....you got a brand new key?


----------



## pnoon

icehog3 said:


> I got a brand new pair of rollerskates.....you got a brand new key?


Melanie? Is that you?


----------



## taltos

pnoon said:


> Melanie? Is that you?


I can't keep my candle lit in the rain to tell.:ss


----------



## SeanGAR

pistol said:


> Oh Christ... I stayed out of it until this doozy of a comment. I think you know what he meant Sean. That whole incident where those planes crashed into the trade center/pentagon, remember that? I seem to remember how upset you were when your school was attacked; it hit a little close to home huh? How nice would it have been to be able to prevent that?


What does Iraq have to do with 911? You understand I have no problem whatsoever with the invasion of Afghanistan. Taliban protected Bin Laden. Bin laden attacked us. Screw them.

I agree that we need to spend money and improve intelligence to ensure these idiots like BinLaden can't attack us again, but the road to 911 started in Riyadh, not Baghdad.

Saying the war in Iraq is/was needed to ensure our freedom or safety is ridiculous. Saddam was no threat. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Attacking Iraq did and will not make us more secure here, that should be abundantly clear. So then, what are we getting for the half trillion we're spending in Iraq? Seriously ... what are we getting? If that was spend on cancer research how many American lives would be saved per year? Five hundred billion is not a trivial amount. More Americans have been killed in Iraq than on 911. Their lives should not be squandered by our leaders as if they're playing a drunken game of Risk at a frat party.

As far as the murders at VT are concerned, some of these killings at VT might have been prevented had the police and administration here used their damned brains, and not been arrogant know-it-all assholes. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or 911 and frankly I can see no reason for you bringing this up. A lady 2 offices down has no husband and her 3 kids have no father because a crazy man killed him when he went to investigate the shots. Tell me what the hell does this have to do with a deliberate invasion of Iraq? What does this have to do with 911, other than to acknowledge the value of hindsight when discussing "what ifs". You realize Al Queda was NOT in Iraq before out invasion, right?


----------



## pnoon

In order to prevent any further degradation of the harmony in CS, I am closing this thread. Besides, it has nothing to do with tobacco legislation and, as with virtually all political discussions, it has turned ugly.


----------



## Pablo

To add to what pnoon said, once a thread has been reported to the moderators by multiple people, it is simply too much work to bother with anymore.


----------

